Mr. Speaker, steelworkers are on the Hill this week to put pressure on the government to end pension theft. They were blindsided when the government announced a change to creditor protection legislation without including the measures needed to protect pensions.

The Liberals promised action in their last budget. The NDP has a bill ready to go. All we have to do is pass it.

When will the Liberals listen to reason and protect workers' pensions?

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's very thoughtful question is on an issue that we also think is very important. We support retirement security. That is why we strengthened the CPP, the Canadian pension plan. We also expanded the wage earner protection program. As the member also highlighted, in our 2018 budget, we put a whole-of-government approach when it comes to dealing with pensions in a meaningful way. We are absolutely committed to workers and pensioners.

A steelworkers delegation is on Parliament Hill this week to remind the government about the need to change Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and insolvency laws. These people understand that under current bankruptcy laws, their pensions could be reduced with a stroke of a pen.

How can the government explain to these steelworkers its failure to protect millions of Canadian workers from the theft of their pensions? How can it explain this betrayal?

Mr. Speaker, pension security is important to our government. That is why in our last budget we committed to a solution to strengthen the pensions. In my mandate letter, I am also pleased to say I have been tasked with this.

Our government has been consulting with stakeholders on this issue for the last number of years. We want to continue to get this right. We are consulting with stakeholders to ensure not that we get any solution, but that we get the right solution. This is a decades-old problem. What government is solving it? Our government is solving it. We are going to get the right solution to this problem.

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the all-party women's caucus, I have heard from many individuals and groups in my riding and across the country on the importance of women's participation in our workforce and our economy. Pay equity is one way our government can move the dial toward equality and empowerment.

Pay equity is not just the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do. When Canadian women can count on equal pay for work of equal value, our economy grows stronger. A strong middle class depends on an economy where everyone has a real and fair chance at success.

I want to thank employers, unions and advocates for the valuable input on our plan.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to undermine democracy in our country by failing to call by-elections for three of the four vacant seats in Parliament. He is picking and choosing which Canadians get representation based upon his own political agenda.

Rather than leaving over 300,000 Canadians without a voice in Parliament, when will the Prime Minister respect democracy and call these by-elections?

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure for me to get up in the House and talk about democracy. Today Bill C-76 is at third reading. This means that more Canadians in 2019, if it passes through the other place, will have an opportunity to vote than they did under the previous government.

The Canada Elections Act sets out a time period for elections and by-elections. Those will all be called within the time allocated. We are very proud of the upcoming by-election on December 3.

Mr. Speaker, after consulting with Canadians, after round tables organized by the IRPP, after the procedure and House affairs committee conducted an excellent study, and I thank it for its hard work on this, we are so proud to announce that the Right Hon. David Johnston is Canada's first independent commissioner for debates.

This is so important. In 2015 that party's former leader, Mr. Harper, did not participate, did not want to have those national leader debates. This ensures that Canadians will have official debates in English and French, accessible to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals made that appointment without any consultation with the other parties. What the Prime Minister has done is made a unilateral decision to name the debates commissioner, set the rules and spend $5.5 million to set up the officer of the commissioner, an office nobody was asking for except for the Prime Minister's Office.

The Prime Minister continues to abuse our democracy for his own political gain. Will the Prime Minister abandon his attempt to manipulate and rig the upcoming election?

Mr. Speaker, we are so proud that the Right Hon. David Johnston will take on this role to ensure that all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, official language minority communities and Canadians with disabilities will have access to two debates, one in English and one in French, and to ensure all Canadians can see their leaders in a moment that is so important during elections to decide who they want to govern them.

We believe His Excellency, and we know Canadians will see this as well, will be an excellent independent commissioner for debates in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have absolutely nothing against His Excellency Mr. Johnston. I remind members that he was the moderator at the infamous 1984 debate in which Mr. Mulroney dealt a knockout blow to the Liberal prime minister with his famous quote:

“We had an option; you had an option.” History repeats itself because the government had an option, consulting or imposing.

Why is the government imposing a solution instead of holding consultations?

Mr. Speaker, there were all kinds of consultations in the past year. We consulted parliamentarians. We consulted Canadians. We consulted media across Canada, and we developed an appropriate plan.

I am pleased that my colleague opposite acknowledges the importance of leaders' debates. It is so important for Canadians to have that kind of spontaneous interaction with their leaders; they are the ones making the decisions, after all. This is excellent for democracy, and I hope everyone in the House will work with the Right Hon. David Johnston to ensure that our debates are—

Mr. Speaker, the Harper government quietly latched on to an interpretation of sharia law to block international adoptions from Muslim majority countries in 2013. This strange rule applies in countries that do not even follow sharia law. Meanwhile, families like Sarah's are blocked.

It has been six years and Sarah still cannot unite with her adopted son. The orphanage is now demanding that Sarah bring him home or give him up.

Why did the Liberals take three years to just review this bizarre policy? Will the government stop using an interpretation of sharia law for adoptions?

Mr. Speaker, international adoptions must always protect the safety and well-being of the children, as well as comply with the laws of both countries.

Harmonizing these laws can be challenging, but the Harper Conservatives did not conduct enough consultations to make sure the provinces and territories, which are responsible for adoption, were on board with the moratorium. They went ahead and cancelled all adoptions from Pakistan, without taking into consideration the generosity of Canadians who wanted to sponsor.

We have asked the department to initiate a review of this policy, with the intent to institute a fairer process.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the picket line with Canada Post workers I learned that the company has suspended a number of benefits, including short-term disability payments. Michael Wall, who has been employed at the company since 2004 and has a serious illness, is depending on those payments in order to make ends meet.

For Canada Post to respond to the strike by attacking its most vulnerable workers is cynical and cruel. While the strike is rotating, these cuts in payments are not. Will the minister be complicit in this mistreatment of Michael and those like him or will she get on the phone today and tell Canada Post to back off?

Mr. Speaker, as we have said time and again in the House, we believe in the collective bargaining process. We know this has been a difficult process. That is why last week I took the measure to appoint a new mediator. Both parties are working closely with the new mediator, and they are still at the table collectively bargaining, as they should. We look forward to an update on those talks in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council investigation into leaks from the Liberal cabinet meetings on shipbuilding revealed that 73 people were aware of the substance of the discussions. Of the 73, most were ignored; some were offered deals; one journalist was offered a job, and only one person is facing trial.

The Prime Minister speculated that Admiral Norman might face charges, and eventually those charges came. Of the 73 people, only one is facing charges. How did the Prime Minister know that only Admiral Mark Norman would be charged?

Ralph GoodaleLiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, there are obviously outstanding legal proceedings with respect to this matter. As has been explained in the House repeatedly, while those proceedings are outstanding, it is certainly inappropriate for the government to make comment on the proceedings. It is equally inappropriate for the opposition to press questions on that matter, because that has an interference with the judicial process, which members of Parliament are supposed to refrain from.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says these questions are inappropriate. In the first part of question period, there was a lot of talk about data protection. Mark Norman wants data for his legal defence. The only protection going on is the Liberals protecting their butts, both literally and figuratively, with Mr. Butts.

Will the government permit the Clerk of the Privy Council to appear before the ethics committee to confirm that none of the materials related to the shipbuilding cabinet discussions have been destroyed, deleted or amended?

Ralph GoodaleLiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, the innuendo in the hon. member's question is entirely inappropriate.

The hon. members opposite are not legal counsel. They are not legal agents in the outstanding prosecution. They have no standing with either the defence or the prosecution. They are not parties to the legal proceedings.

All members need to allow Canada's independent court system to do its job without partisan interference.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for the government to stop playing hide-and-seek in the Admiral Norman case. We are asking for assurances that the documents Admiral Norman needs for his defence have not been destroyed.

Will the Prime Minister ask the Clerk of the Privy Council to appear before the committee to indicate whether the documents were destroyed, yes or no?